The Imposition of Religions

Culture clash can be positive or negative, as we've seen through studying interactions between Natives and settlers. More advanced medicines are usually good. Cultural genocide, not so much. But what about religion? From what I have seen in the writings for class, it seems that the interaction between Native  religions and Christianity has been nearly universally negative. In Chapter 12 of A Will to Survive, the first  author gives her account of growing up and being introduced to Catholicism with her tribe. She gives typical Catholic horror stories of judgmental priests, harsh nuns, and threats of hellfire. On several occasions, she sees people coming out of confessional booths crying, or hears the priests on the other side of the confessional shouting at people taking part in confession.

I may be a little biased, not being a fan of religions in general, but I can't envision a situation where trying to replace someone else's religion or introduce organized religion to people who are not familiar with it would be a good thing. It's just plain presumptuous to think that others are not as serious in their religion, or lack thereof, as you are. However, this is exactly how the missionaries to the Natives thought. They believed they were introducing the Natives to a more 'civilized' religion (yes, because burning people at the stake, burning books, burning down houses, burning...a lot of stuff...in the name of God is really civilized). Not that the Native religions didn't have their violence (especially against animals), but at least they were respectful about it. They didn't have the top down, binary-infused mess of a religion that many white people did and do. They had religions that gave respect to all living things and didn't impose strict, arbitrary moralities and systems on followers.

Essentially, no religion is really better than any other (get my double meaning? Haha, I'm sorry, that was a little rude). There is nothing that makes Catholicism better than a local, tribal religion, and nothing that makes the local religion better than Islam, or Judaism, and vice versa. If people started realizing this, we would live in a much better world.

Race and the Media

A trend I have been noticing in the material we've discussed in class is that is seems to be "okay" to be racist against certain groups. From products and sports teams being named after entire nations to the issue of the freshman committee making headdresses, it seems as though racial issues involving Native Americans are less important than those involving African or Caribbean Americans, Asians, or any other oppressed group. Like I said earlier, a station at the freshman "diversity" fair that painted people in blackface would have incensed outrage, whereas the station that was really thought of, the one making "Native" headdresses, went unnoticed except by people in our class. How can this be?

Part of me wants to say it's just plain ignorance (which it really is), but why is there so much ignorance? Who is perpetuating the ignorance? Is it individuals or families that just don't know any better, or is it the government? The media? Something else?

I would like to argue that the media and advertising is the reason for much of this ignorance. Obviously ignorance is being passed down from generation to generation, but it has to stem from somewhere, and the root of the problem comes from the media.

When it comes down to it, the media are the ones unintentionally conditioning us to be racist. The media is the reason why people are generally more afraid if they're walking through a city alone, at night, and there's a black man behind them than if there's a white man behind them (I'm not saying this is right, but I'm saying that it happens this way). I will openly admit that I am guilty of this profiling myself. It's horribly embarrassing, but it's true. I feel like a terrible person for feeling that way, but I also know that I have been conditioned by television to associate black people with crime. As much as I have tried to break this habit, it's a physiological reaction that doesn't seem to want to go away.

Of course, that's kind of unrelated, because it's not the point I'm trying to make. It just shows how much influence the media has on our ideas of race. When it comes to Native Americans, it's a lack of coverage by the media that allows for so much ignorance. People aren't necessarily openly racist against Natives (at least not here in the Northeast), but they know nothing about them. Their issues aren't shown on TV. Their struggles is not written about in the newspapers. It is not covered on the internet. They are absent from mainstream media and, in the eyes of the average person, silent and nonexistent.

Other races, on the other hand, are at least represented, even if it's negatively. Their struggles are covered by the media. If something someone in politics said offended Asians, or African-Americans, it is found out about, incenses rage, and is usually apologized for. This is never the case for Native Americans, about whom racist things are said on a daily basis (Washington Redskins, anyone?)

So I'm not really sure who I'm blaming here. The media provides people with stories they want to hear, but people want to hear more stories like the ones the media provides, so the media provides more stories like that. It's a vicious cycle that multiple people are responsible for and it ensures that groups like Native Americans are excluded from mainstream discourse. Perhaps that's why it's "okay" to make headdresses.

What I Didn't Like at NMAI

Last Friday, our class visited the National Museum of the American Indian in Washington, D.C. I thoroughly enjoyed the museum and its political messages. But there were a few things I simply could not get past.

I'd like to preface this by saying that, of course, I have respect for every culture in some way, even if I don't agree with what they do or how they think. Well...unless they're totally horrible in every way, but I can't think of many cultures that are like that. I'd also like to note that I am well aware that everyone who reads this will roll their eyes and be all like, "there she goes again..." I'm not really concerned with whether or not people agree with what I have to say--I just feel that I need to get it off my chest.

Okay, here we go.

All that spiritual connection with animals, all the "consent" to be killed and used...yeah, that's all bullshit. And yes, I know I'm Ms. Supervegan and what not, so of course I would feel this way, but really, it's all complete bullshit, and I'll explain why.

Really quickly--another preface: I am in no way demonizing these people for doing what they needed to survive pre-20th century. Gardein and Tofutti didn't exist until like, the 90s at the earliest (maybe the 80s for Tofutti--they've been making kickass vegan frozen treats and cheeses for a while). My point is, you can't blame people for not using resources that they don't have. This is in the same way that I wouldn't blame people in say, the mountain regions of Tibet, for eating meat because barely anything grows there. What I want to focus more on are the rituals that involve animals. My real complaint exists not so much in the actual slaughter of animals, but in the realm of all the false rhetoric that surrounds that slaughter, because it's all really unoriginal and ridiculous when you really think about it.

Firstly, if you really respect and love animals, you won't use them for silly things like religious rituals. I understand that religion is a big deal, but, objectively, it's kind of arbitrary. For example, when we were at the museum, I saw a depiction of a ceremony in which the full skins of white deer were held up on giant sticks and everyone stood in a circle, for no apparent good reason. I'm sure there was something positive that they thought would happen if they did this, or something negative that would happen if they didn't, but things are going to either happen or not happen regardless of whether you slaughter fifty deer and hold them up on sticks. It's just silly. And a bit suspect, I think.

I had to. Anyway, on to my next point. I was very disturbed by the rodeo video that we watched. In fact, I walked away early because I just couldn't watch any more. Few people actually understand how harmful the rodeo actually is to animals. Could you imagine spending your entire life in a cage, only coming out to run around, be caught rather violently, and be put back in the cage? It must be horrifically boring. And that poor sheep who was being ridden by that little kid...what a miserable existence to have to do the same things over and over again with little reprieve. And this is the bare minimum of suffering for these animals. Most of the time, they are beaten or otherwise tortured so they perform properly. And, just like the religious rituals, the rodeo is completely pointless. "Tradition" is a terrible excuse for anything. You know what else was "traditional"? Owning slaves. Sacrificial ceremonies of both animals and humans. Does that mean that these things are good, just because they are part of a tradition? I certainly wouldn't say so.

My final point is that the idea of animals "wanting" to help humans by "giving" them their meat and skins is totally unoriginal and completely silly. In one of the videos at the museum, a legend told of a man who traveled in the four directions. At one point, he met animals, particularly the buffalo, who told him how to use its skins and meat for warmth and food. I almost laughed when I watched that. I mean, come on. What rational being would say, "Sure! Take my life. I wasn't using it or anything." I mean, that just makes no sense.

The other part of this is the idea of the Myth of Animal Consent. My understanding, from studying this theory, is that throughout history, humans have justified the taking of lives of animals in completely arbitrary ways, purely for their own sakes (if you read my blog posts from last semester, I mentioned this myth in my tangent against Barbara Kingsolver). In ancient Greece, sacrificial cows (for fortune-telling, I'm assuming, another silly idea) would be taken to the oracle. The oracle would ask the cow if it was willing to sacrifice itself, and then proceed to drip water on its head. And then--this is the laughable part--the cow would shake the water off its head, and the oracle would take this as a nod in agreement. When they hunted, the Yakut people would say, upon encountering a bear or anything else they wanted to kill, "You have come to me. You wish me to kill you" (all this from Foer). Native Americans are no different from the Yakuts or the ancient Greeks (or us, for that matter, because we do this too, in different ways). It makes no difference to an animal if you're "honoring" it, or using every part of it--it's being killed. Was Jeffrey Dahmer a more moral serial killer because he gained sustenance from the people he killed? Do you think the people, as they were being drugged, raped, and strangled to death, cared that he was going to eat them? Do you think that made them feel better? Of course it didn't. All they cared about was the fact that someone was killing them, and animals are no different. We can make up all the spiritual connections we want--when it comes down to it, violence is violence, and no amount of spirituality can change that.

If you really, sincerely, disagree (or agree) with me, let me know. I'm always interested to hear feedback.

The Nature of 'Our Jokes'

In Me Funny, one of the contributors comments on the differences between three types of jokes having to do with Native peoples: not jokes, in jokes, and our jokes. Not jokes are jokes told about Natives by non-Natives. They are not funny because they are generally being told by someone of the dominant culture, therefore they are not jokes at all. In jokes are jokes that both Natives and non-Natives can relate to. Our jokes are jokes told by Natives for Natives. White people are usually not in on these types of jokes.

When we were watching Native comedians in class the other day, one routine that caught my attention was Charlie Hill's deprecation (if you could call it that) of the dominant culture. It could be argued that Hill's jokes were 'our jokes,' making fun of white people and the dominant society. Now, I take no issue with this deprecation because being white is awesome. I don't mean that it's better than any other race, but I mean, in this world, it's pretty awesome to be white. We get ridiculous privilege over anyone with skin darker than ours, and I think it's important for every white person to recognize this privilege. Being ignorant about white privilege only perpetuates racism because it gives no reason to combat racism. If we believe that white people have no privilege, then why should we be concerned about racism? If white privilege is nonexistent, then racism is dead, and, of course, this could not be further from the truth.

So what does white privilege mean for 'our jokes'? Does it mean that Native people have a right to make our jokes in the presence of white people? I would argue that of course they do. Some people may harp on about "reverse racism" (which doesn't really exist, mind you. That's a sociological fact), but ultimately white people are the privileged group. In my opinion, we should really not be offended by anything. Because, at the end of the day, we're still not going to be targeted disproportionately by police. We're still going to have no trouble hailing a taxi. No one is going to attribute our individual features to our race. Yes, I do think these jokes are allowed to make us somewhat uncomfortable, but no one should be calling them offensive to white people. We have always been the winners, the writers of history--I think we could stand to be knocked down a few pegs.